Render a web page to PDF exactly as a browser would print it. Use this to archive a page, produce a document from a rendered report, or capture something for a record. Returns a PDF file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The absolute URL to render, including https:// | |
| landscape | No | Landscape orientation. Defaults to false. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the output format ('Returns a PDF file') and the browser-print behavior, but it omits potential caveats such as rendering timeouts, JavaScript dependency, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-organized in three sentences: it states the core action, lists usage scenarios, and closes with the return type. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward rendering tool, the description covers the main purpose and output, but without annotations or an output schema it lacks detail on failure modes, limitations, or operational requirements. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent might need when handling edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full coverage (100%) for both parameters, including descriptions for url and landscape with defaults. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already documents everything. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Render a web page to PDF') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing browser-accurate printing. It also lists concrete use cases (archive, document from rendered report, record), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear contexts for use (archiving, producing documents, capturing records) and implies a distinction from screenshot_url and rendered_html through the phrase 'as a browser would print it.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name the alternatives, so it falls just short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct output or purpose: audit, diagnostics, rendered HTML, screenshot, and PDF. Even the two diagnostic tools are clearly separated by what they check, so an agent is unlikely to confuse them.
All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but they do not follow a single regular pattern: most are noun phrases, while url_to_pdf uses a different structure. The inconsistency is minor and does not hurt readability.
Five tools cover the core browser-rendering use cases without redundancy or bloat. Each tool earns its place in the set.
The set covers the obvious needs of a render-focused server: accessibility checking, failure diagnostics, post-JavaScript HTML, visual capture, and PDF output. There are no glaring dead ends for typical page-inspection workflows.